RE:RE:RE:This Problem Explains All Our ProblemsMacloud1 wrote: Correction
You are right it is 20% the drop in diamond market and the Indian demonitization and the other 20% is the Study done at 1.5 MM sieve and actually mininig at 1MM sieve. I have proven
Mac, I hate to disagree with you, as I value your postings quite highly. Bud you did not prove that the decrease in White Gem production was due to using a finer screen.
However, the point you did not make, or failed to emphasize, is that by going to a finer screen, WE HAVE ONLY IMPROVED RESULTS.
BECAUSE OF THE FINER SCREEN WE ARE PRODUCING MORE DIAMONDS THAN THE BULK SAMPLE WOULD HAVE PREDICTED.
FURTHER, THE BULK SAMPLE WOULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT THESE SMALLER DIAMONDS WOULD HAVE BEEN 32% WHITE GEMS.
THEY ARE NOT. You are implying that the finer screed reduced the number of larger White Gems. That is grossly a fallacious idea, and simply not true. You have proved no shuch thing. (Adding more small diamonds obviously reduced the percentage of larger ones (duh,) but not their number.)
The only thing the finer screen did was to get us more smaller diamonds. And the Bulk Sample results predicted that those smaller diamonds would be 32% White Gems. And even if they were not,
WE STILL SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE 32% WHITE GEMS FROM THE 1.5MM SCREEN AND LARGER - AND THOSE GEMS WOULD HAVE PROVIDED US WITH THE $1 DIVIDEND. All those plus-1.5MM White Gems were not there as the bulk sample predicted. Going to a smaller screen did not make them disappear as you imply you have proven.
AGAIN, THE SMALLER SCREEN ONLY ADDED TO (IMPROVED) THE NUMBER OF DIAMONDS RECOVERED. THERE IS NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE DECREASED INCOME, THEY ONLY INCREASED IT. The sad truth is that we got more brown diamonds, across the whole size spectrum, than the bulk sample predicted. And all those big White Gems weren't there.